The notion of 'thousands of victims' was crucial to generate universal public outrage. However, having 3000 angry families breathing down their necks was never part of the perps' demented plan. Our ongoing analyses and investigations suggest that NO one died on 9/11.

Okay, for Simon's sake, here is a post addressed specifically to readers and no particular member of this forum:

I think mistrust is very different from hate or spite. All I said (or meant to say) was I would discontinue scouting Equinox's posts for signs of trouble - even though I found them very troublesome and his defense of the Brian S. Staveley simulation crew unnerving.

I am not purposely watching his every post but when Equinox posts stuff like crooked-eyed folks whose faces seem to warp between two very similar photos in a rather simulated-looking city and he fails to answer a question about significantly different blur-levels of the background between them, and instead tells us to pay attention to changing text in the background, it feels odd and it feels like his "poor language skills" excuse falls a little flat. (Or more specifically, flies in at a convenient time to rescue him/her/it/them from addressing the point.)

It feels weird. And now it makes sense why he'd be defending Brian S. Staveley (a previous "fan" with a radio show praising September Clues, very different from our own "brianv" user, though the similarity in name seems almost to be a deliberate attempt to confuse readers about them).

Equinox, as it turns out, might be a bit simmy himself. And it is funny too how some newer researchers come on here and willingly slap up pictures of themselves all over the message board and seem so proud of finally gaining "permission" or "ability" to do so, though it's never clear why it's such a struggle or what private turmoil prompts them to go through it in the first place. We don't ask for people to post pictures of themselves. In fact, it always seems to be a sim who does so.

It's also interesting to me how whiny and immature the responses seem when other members don't lap up their "personal" pictures with conviction, even though this site is a photo forensics and analysis web site, and how really obnoxious ad hominem protests can suddenly pour out of someone(s?) who previously were all smileys and magnanimity ... someone(s?) who apparently is/are supposed to understand the weight of this gigantic lie, and the powerful moneyed interests working on keeping it fresh. It smells foul, very foul.

I agree with brianv, there is no reason to trust the disjointed, logical-argumentation algorithms of Equinox or Brian S Staveley, nor any rehashing of September Clues posted anywhere on the Internet - including here on our forum. I also don't think any 'praise' is evidence that any members goals here are benevolent. (Remember, we had D.Duck and countless others "Rah! Rah!"-ing us for months before doing the same turncoat dance.) We have always been wary of praise and fandom and now it seems to be getting to be a very sage caution indeed.

For now, I will refrain from posting all of the errors in the photos and the signs of photoshop in the small girl's face (just a few signs below), the large man's frame, and in the background but I wanted to see how Equinox would respond to even a hint of skepticism and it's not encouraging at all. Not at all. She/he/it/they behind that username immediately launched into an attack-mode. The usual protest of shills: questioning my ability to recognize fake imagery. Well I can recognize when something is fake or amiss and these photos very much qualify. Instead of simply stating: "That girl is my girlfriend Peace." or "A passerby took both photos." I am suddenly "taking the piss" (whatever that means) rather than pointing out signs of face-morphing and photo editing technology utilized to construct these pictures.

One more thing: I told y'all about this problem of members biding their time, sucking up to research, and then injecting accusations of "unreliable narrator" when their dodgy "personal" stories (that they seem a little eager to "volunteer") are questioned.

Did I not call this one before it happened? The answer is yes, I did and so have others. It's all too formulaic. Learn the pattern, folks. It's only going to get more surreal as the technology to simulate people advances. Buckle in to your critical thinking, and defend your community from this menace to truth.

Okay, one more for good measure and I'll leave it alone. You guys can find the rest. It's a treasure trove.

I think others before have pointed out that the eyes in the sims are frequently made unreadable so those whose eyes were 'borrowed' are not identified in a face that doesn't belong to them. In other words, they don't want to invent irises so they make the picture too small, slap on some glasses or just add little diddly-shits (I think that's a technical term) to foil eye-reading professionals or software.